Professor warns against ‘zero error’ forensic pretence

David Wilson has argued that forensic scientists must abandon any pretence of “zero error”. The professor of criminology at UCE Birmingham warns that beneath the glamorous veneer of forensic science, it should be made sure that forensic practitioners are rewarded for their work and that the science remains credible.

Describing the current fixation with forensic science, he told the Guardian: “Hardly a day goes by without news of some offender being caught by yet another new DNA profiling technique that allows a ‘cold case’ to be solved from years ago.”

He mentioned the recent development of pendulum list searching (PLS), that interprets otherwise uninterruptible multiple DNA samples or mixtures, and led to the conviction of ‘shoe rapist’ John Lloyd.

However, he went on to give examples of cases which have the potential to cast a shadow over the much implied objectivity of forensic science.

“A juror in the case of Barry George – who was given a life sentence in 2001 for the murder of Jill Dando – broke her silence last week to say she had felt ‘tricked’ into convicting George, and a number of forensic scientists now claim that the forensic evidence his conviction rested on should be dismissed as ‘unreliable’.”

The former presenter of BBC 1’s forensic science series, Leave No Trace, described how this has taken place against a backdrop where forensic science is publicly taking a centre stage.

“Forensic science seems to imply glamour, certainty, self-discipline, objectivity, truth and justice all rolled into one, and in doing so effortlessly accommodates much-heralded successes, as well as the more rarely mentioned failures. But this can`t be right.”

“I sense desperation by some forensic scientists who seem to want to maintain ‘zero error’ pretence about their discipline, which simply cannot be sustained in the face of mounting evidence.”

Mr Wilson refers to various cases where people have been wrongly accused and later exonerated because of “junk forensic science”.

Changes are needed “if forensic science is to retain credibility”, he states. “Chief among these changes should be to pay forensic scientists more, and to better promote the work that they do.”

He added: “They are vastly undervalued for the skills and academic backgrounds they have. Could this lack of value have anything to do with the fact that the vast majority of those I worked with were female, and that forensic science was seen as ‘women`s work’? Nor were their working conditions pleasant – most seemed to spend inordinate amounts of time in scrubs, breathing recycled air in clinically pristine laboratories.

“Perhaps the biggest change has to come from the scientists themselves, and from those – like the police – who make use of their work. My plea is that they claim less for what forensic science can do, and be more open about what it can and cannot deliver to bring offenders to justice. Did Barry George kill Jill Dando? I don`t know, but I do know he shouldn`t have been convicted on the basis of the forensic science offered at his trial.”